CHAPTER IX. Debate in both Houses on the Swedish Treaty-Discussion in the House of Commons respecting Orange Lodges in England-Vote of Credit, – Prerogation of Parliament, and Frince Regent's Speech. ΟΝ N June 11th the "Treaty of Concert and Subsidy between his Britannic Majesty and the King of Sweden" was laid be fore both Houses of Parliament. The following are its principal articles. The King of Sweden engages to employ a corps of not less than 30,000 men in a direct operation on the continent against the common foe, in concert with the Russian troops under the command of the Prince Roval of Sweden, according to stipulations al ready existing between the courts of Stockholm and Petersburg. His Britannic Majesty accedes to the conventions made between those two powers, in so much as not only to oppose no obstacle to the annexation of Norway to the kingdom of Sweden, but to assist, if necessary, in obtaining that object by a naval co-operation; it being however understood, that recourse shall not be had to force, unless the King of Denmark shall previously have refused to join the alliance of the north upon the conditions stipulated in the engage. ments between the courts of Stockholm and Petersburg. His Britannic Majesty engages, indeper dently of other succours, to tornish to Sweden for the service of the present campaign, the sum of one million sterling. He also cedes to the King of Sweden the possession of the island of Guadaloupe, in the West Indies, and transfers to him all his rights over that island. The King of Sweden reciprocally grants to the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, for twenty years, the right of entrepot in the ports of Gottenburg, Carlsham, and Stralsund for all commodities of Great Britain, or her colories, upon a duty of one per cent, ad valorem. A separate article, added to the treaty, relates to the conditions in which Guadaloupe is to be held by Sweden. See State Papers. Notice was given in each House of a day for taking this treaty into consideration. On June 14th, Earl Grey rose in the House of Lords to put some questions to the Earl of Liverpool respecting the Swedish treaty. He recited the article relative to the annexation of Norway to the crown of Sweden, and observing that Great Britain was bound to co-operate by force in its acquisition in the event of a refusal of the court of Denmark to accede to the northern alliance upon certain terms not yet known to their lordships, he wished to be informed what were the conditions in the alliance alliance between Russia and Sweden upon the non-accession of Denmark, by which such a forfeiture was to be incurred. Their lordships, who had with just indignation reprobated the principle of dismemberment and partition under the pretext of moral or physical convenience, ought fully to know upon what grounds they proceeded in sanctioning a treaty that appeared in any degree to recognize such a political doctrine; they should therefore be further informed of what had lately passed between our government and that of Copenhagen, which was known to have sent a minister to this court, during which time hostilities had been suspended, but had been since resumed. He hoped the noble lord would have no objection to produce the correspondence between the Danish minister and our government; and he also wished to know how it happened that the treaty before them, which had been signed on the 3d of March, was not laid upon their table till so late a period of the session. Another point on which information was desirable, was how far Sweden had actually put in execution her engagements by the treaty, and what sum had been already paid her on this ground, Further, he thought that our engagements with Russia, and other foreign powers, were necessary to be known in order to enter upon a due consideration of this important subject. The Earl of Liverpool would not anticipate the future discussion, in which his Majesty's servants would have an opportunity of fully explaining the grounds of the treaty with Sweden, and would at present content himself with saying that they had proceeded upon no such principle of policy as that to which the noble earl had adverted. With respect to the engagements between Russia and Sweden, as they had not been communicated to the ministers upon authority, he did not seel himself justified to comply with his lordship's wishes on that head, but he had no objection to lay upon the table the substance of the article to which the present treaty referred. He must decline the production of the correpondence with the Danish minister, as it involved topics which, if disclosed, might be prejudicial to other powers; but the information required on this point was not necessary for the consideration of the present treaty. In reply to the observation made as to the time in which the treaty was laid on the table, he said that it could not be produced till its ratification which only arrived on the 10th of May, and some subsequent discussions rendered it inexpedient to lay it before parliament sooner than had been done. With respect to the money advanced to Sweden, he had no objection to give the fullest information on that head. As to our engagements with other powers, all the treaties entered into were already before parliament; but with regard to any further discussions relative to co-operation, the House must be aware that it would be improper to say any thing at this moment. Earl Grey expressed himself not. entirely satisfied with the extent of information offered to be granted, and intimated that when the discussion came on, he should take take the sense of the House on the Britain is to be invited to accede subject. In answer to a question after wards put to Lord Liverpool, his lordship affirmed that there was no treaty of concert and subsidy with either Russia or Prussia. On June 16th, there was laid before parliament a paper containing the substance of the engagements between the courts of Stockholm and Petersburg, so far as they are referred to in the treaty between Great Britain and Sweden. In this it is stated that the French government having, by the occupation of Swedish Pomerania, committed an act of hostility against the Swedish government, and by the movement of its armies having menaced the empire of Russia, the contracting parties engage to make a diversion with a combined force of 25 or 30,000 Swedes, and 15 or 20 000 Russians upon some point of the coast of Germany; but that, as the King of Sweden cannot make such diversion consistently with the security of his dominions, so long as he must regard Norway as an enemy, the Emperor of Russia engages, either by negociation or military co-operation, to unite Norway to Sweden, which acquisition is to be considered as a preliminary to the diversion in Germany. The two powers, unwilling to make an enemy of the King of Denmark, will propose to him to accede to this alliance, and offer him a complete indemnity for Norway by a territory more contiguous to his German dominions, provided he will for ever cede his rights on Norway. In case he shall refuse this offer, they engage to consider Denmark as an enemy. Great to and guarantee this treaty. By a subsequent convention, the Russian auxiliary force is augmented to 35,000 men. The date of this treaty is March 24, 1812. Earl Grey, on June 18th, rose and first observed that the document laid on the table was not that which the House had a right to look for, as it might reason. ably expect the communication of the articles themselves, instead of the alleged substance of them. Not, however, to dwell upon that circumstance, he contended that not only hostilities with Denmark having been continued after an offer of peace, but a treaty having been entered into with another power for its spoliation, it was become doubly necessary that it should be proved that Denmark had refused that justice which Great Britain had a right to demand: it was a fact that the ports of Denmark had been closed against the privateers of France, and every facility given to British commerce, as early as the 10th or 12th of February. Soon after, an official agent arrived from Copenhagen, who was succeeded by Count Bernstorf. Hence it appeared that long before the Swedish treaty was concluded, Denmark had by overt acts incontestibly proved her pacific disposition towards this country. After some other observations relative to the right of the House to be fully informed how the case stood before it gave its sanction to a treaty of robbery and spoliation; his lordship concluded with moving, that an humble address be presented to the Prince Regent, for an account of all communications that had taken place between between Great Britain and Denmark since the commencement of the year, with a view to a pacific arrangement between the two powers. The Earl of Liverpool said he should confine himself strictly to the motion; and he would repeat that the documents moved for had no connection with the subject that was this night to be debated, since the treaty with Sweden was substantially concluded before Denmark bad made pacific overtures to Great Britain. The first communication was received from the Danish minister at Stockholm on Feb. 25th. An answer was returned on the 28th, which did not reach Stockholm till March 4th, the day subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty now on the table. Lord Grenville spoke in favour of the motion; after which the House divided, contents, 27; noncontents, 72; majority against the motion, 45. The Earl of Liverpool then rose to speak on the main question. He began with adverting to the terrible storm which was impending over Russia, in the last year, when he was invaded by a greater force than was ever before brought against any country. Two things, he said, were necessary to give her a chance of successful resistance; peace with Turkey, and the cooperation of Sweden. The first was effected chiefly by the mediation of this country. With regard to the second, France had, by seizing Pomerania, tried the effect of intimidation on Sweden, whilst on the other hand she made large offers to engage her friendship. She, however, preferred malling common cause with Russia against the enemy; and was she not entitled to some indemnification for her loss and hazard! There were three considerations to be attended to in discussing the merits of the treaty in question: 1. Were Russia and Sweden justified in entering into their engagements? 2. Was, or was not, Great Britain justified in acceding to that treaty ? 3. Did she act wisely and politicly in acceding? With respect to the first, it was not to be forgotten that Denmark formed part of the confederacy against Russia. She engaged to Buonaparte to occupy the north of Germany with her troops, of which some countries were in alliance with Russia, and thus as completely co-operated with the French as if she had marched with them to Moscow. She made her election, and was to stand by the consequences. As to the justice of the accession of Great Britain to the engagements between Russia and Sweden, were we not at war with Denmark ? Danish seamen manned the French ships; their ports were shut against us, their privateers were annoying our commerce. Could it be asserted that we were not as much justified in conquering Norway, as in conquering any other place belonging to Denmark? The idea of annexing Norway to Sweden was not new. The purpose of Sir John Moore's expedition had been to co-operate with Sweden in the conquest of Norway as an indemnification for the loss of Finland. The nominal war, which afterwards ensued with Sweden, had indeed released this country from any preceding engog ment; but as she had now she n 1 shewn such a determination to cooperate in the common cause, she had a strong claim on our liberality to promote her views in any legitimate contest. With respect to the policy of our acceding to the engagements between the two powers, there was no object, except the independence of the Peninsula, so important to Great Britain, as that Norway should belong to a power able and willing to preserve its independence against France. It was a country full of harbours, from which we procured a considerable part of our naval stores. He did not mean to say that for this reason solely Denmark ought to be deprived of it; but till that nation was prepared to sacrifice its German dominions for its insular security, it must be dependant on France. The noble lord then made some observations to shew that even in the last year the conduct of Sweden bad been of material service to Russia, and that Denmark had made no overtures til after the almost complete destruction of the French invading armies. The question, he said, came to this; how far the Swedish government had shewn a disposition to perform the treaty and he endeavoured to prove from facts that its exertions had been hearty and zealous As deserved to be purchased at almost any price. He concluded by moving an address of thanks to the Prince Regent for laying this treaty before parliament, and to assure his Royal Highness of their readiness to co-operate with him to carry the same into effect. Lord Holland, after some preliminary remarks on the moral nature of the question, as affecting the reputation of the country, observed that the noble earl had somehow overlooked the million of English money that was to be paid to Sweden. He then stated the outline of the treaty, as he understood its stipulations. Besides this sum of money we were to cede the island of Guadaloupe, in perpetuity to Sweden, and assist her in despoiling her neighbour of a part of his hereditary dominions; and we were never to make peace unless Sweden voluntarily gave up her claims, or was put in possession of Norway. In return, Sweden was to do what she was already obliged to do by treaty, and to give us a right of entrepot at three ports, but this only for 20 years, although the cessions made to her were for perpetuity. The treaty before the House refers to a former treaty concluded between Russia and Sweden last year; yet it is asserted to have been necesto the compensation given to Swe- sary to secure the co-operation of den by the cession of a West In- Sweden. Russia had in fact dedia island, he said it was not a rived all the advantage from this new idea, and that there never treaty. By an act of robbery and was an occasion in which such a plunder, she had wrested from her measure was more important or ally part of his dominion; and inless detrimental to this country. stead of restoring it, had agreed The return, that of opening a de- with this ally to rob a third party. pot for British commerce in Swe- It had been asked, were not we at den, was such an effectual revers-war with Denmark? He would ing of the continental system, as ask, were the two allies so? He belicred |